Klipstein v. United States

94 F. 356, 1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 3064
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Klipstein v. United States. Read the opinion of the Court — 91 F. 520
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York·Decided January 27, 1899·No. No. 2,572·Published

Opinion

WHEELER, District Judge.

This importation was called “aliz-arine violet,” and appears to have been known as “alizarine cyanine R.” The question about it is whether it is a coal-tar, or an aliz-arine, color or dye. The decision heretofore filed was made upon the testimony of one of the importers taken before the board, without that of the same witness taken in this court, which had not been sent. That testimony indicated that it was a coal-tar color with some doubt, arising somewhat, perhaps, from the fact that artificial alizarine is produced from anthracene, which is a coal-tar product. Cochrane v. Soda Fabrik, 111 U. S. 293, 4 Sup. Ct. 455. The decision of the board upon that evidence was followed. The testimony taken in this court, considered with, and notwithstanding, that given before, seems to show fairly that it is, and was known as, an artificial alizarine color or dye. This leads to an opposite conclusion from that reached before. Affirmance set aside, and decision reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Klipstein v. United States, 94 F. 356, 1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 3064 (circtsdny 1899).

94 F. 356 (Klipstein v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cochrane v. Badische Anilin & Soda Fabrik
111 U.S. 293 (Supreme Court, 1884)